A Map Worth Glancing At

A Conversation on Utopias with David Pinder

Jesper Pagh, Malene Freudendal-Pedersen

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskning

Resumé

“There is no alternative”, Margaret Thatcher infamously stated as an argument for capital- ism in its most liberal form – despite its obvious shortcomings – as the only relevant eco- nomic system in advanced and modern democracies. With the demise of state socialism in the 1990s for a time it seemed like she had been right, and more and more in urban planning and design today, the market forces seem at least as important as the human condition. But why is it meant to be unrealistic to propose decent housing for all or an urbanism that puts the needs of people above those of profit? And what is inconceivable about an urbanism that is no longer based around private property, or that emphasises the pleasures and joys of living? In this e-mail conversation the British geographer David Pinder makes a defence for utopian thinking as a means to imagine alternatives that seem impossible today but may be possible tomorrow
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftTwentyfirst
Vol/bind2
Udgave nummer02
Sider (fra-til)68-79
Antal sider12
ISSN2246-1612
StatusUdgivet - jan. 2014

Emneord

  • Utopier
  • Byer
  • Demokrati
  • Neoliberalisme
  • David Pinder

Citer dette

Pagh, Jesper ; Freudendal-Pedersen, Malene. / A Map Worth Glancing At : A Conversation on Utopias with David Pinder. I: Twentyfirst. 2014 ; Bind 2, Nr. 02. s. 68-79.
@article{af8953b3b9564f0db716e14b5cdbf6a6,
title = "A Map Worth Glancing At: A Conversation on Utopias with David Pinder",
abstract = "“There is no alternative”, Margaret Thatcher infamously stated as an argument for capital- ism in its most liberal form – despite its obvious shortcomings – as the only relevant eco- nomic system in advanced and modern democracies. With the demise of state socialism in the 1990s for a time it seemed like she had been right, and more and more in urban planning and design today, the market forces seem at least as important as the human condition. But why is it meant to be unrealistic to propose decent housing for all or an urbanism that puts the needs of people above those of profit? And what is inconceivable about an urbanism that is no longer based around private property, or that emphasises the pleasures and joys of living? In this e-mail conversation the British geographer David Pinder makes a defence for utopian thinking as a means to imagine alternatives that seem impossible today but may be possible tomorrow",
keywords = "Utopier, Byer, Demokrati, Neoliberalisme, David Pinder, Utopias, Cities, Democracy, Neoliberalism, David Pinder",
author = "Jesper Pagh and Malene Freudendal-Pedersen",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "2",
pages = "68--79",
journal = "Arkitektur DK",
issn = "0004-2013",
publisher = "Arkitektens Forlag",
number = "02",

}

Pagh, J & Freudendal-Pedersen, M 2014, 'A Map Worth Glancing At: A Conversation on Utopias with David Pinder', Twentyfirst, bind 2, nr. 02, s. 68-79.

A Map Worth Glancing At : A Conversation on Utopias with David Pinder. / Pagh, Jesper; Freudendal-Pedersen, Malene.

I: Twentyfirst, Bind 2, Nr. 02, 01.2014, s. 68-79.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskning

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Map Worth Glancing At

T2 - A Conversation on Utopias with David Pinder

AU - Pagh, Jesper

AU - Freudendal-Pedersen, Malene

PY - 2014/1

Y1 - 2014/1

N2 - “There is no alternative”, Margaret Thatcher infamously stated as an argument for capital- ism in its most liberal form – despite its obvious shortcomings – as the only relevant eco- nomic system in advanced and modern democracies. With the demise of state socialism in the 1990s for a time it seemed like she had been right, and more and more in urban planning and design today, the market forces seem at least as important as the human condition. But why is it meant to be unrealistic to propose decent housing for all or an urbanism that puts the needs of people above those of profit? And what is inconceivable about an urbanism that is no longer based around private property, or that emphasises the pleasures and joys of living? In this e-mail conversation the British geographer David Pinder makes a defence for utopian thinking as a means to imagine alternatives that seem impossible today but may be possible tomorrow

AB - “There is no alternative”, Margaret Thatcher infamously stated as an argument for capital- ism in its most liberal form – despite its obvious shortcomings – as the only relevant eco- nomic system in advanced and modern democracies. With the demise of state socialism in the 1990s for a time it seemed like she had been right, and more and more in urban planning and design today, the market forces seem at least as important as the human condition. But why is it meant to be unrealistic to propose decent housing for all or an urbanism that puts the needs of people above those of profit? And what is inconceivable about an urbanism that is no longer based around private property, or that emphasises the pleasures and joys of living? In this e-mail conversation the British geographer David Pinder makes a defence for utopian thinking as a means to imagine alternatives that seem impossible today but may be possible tomorrow

KW - Utopier

KW - Byer

KW - Demokrati

KW - Neoliberalisme

KW - David Pinder

KW - Utopias

KW - Cities

KW - Democracy

KW - Neoliberalism

KW - David Pinder

M3 - Journal article

VL - 2

SP - 68

EP - 79

JO - Arkitektur DK

JF - Arkitektur DK

SN - 0004-2013

IS - 02

ER -